↓ Skip to main content

Friendship Selection and Influence Processes for Physical Aggression and Prosociality: Differences between Single-Sex and Mixed-Sex Contexts

Overview of attention for article published in Sex Roles, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
50 Mendeley
Title
Friendship Selection and Influence Processes for Physical Aggression and Prosociality: Differences between Single-Sex and Mixed-Sex Contexts
Published in
Sex Roles, September 2017
DOI 10.1007/s11199-017-0818-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jan Kornelis Dijkstra, Christian Berger

Abstract

The present study examined to what extent selection and influence processes for physical aggression and prosociality in friendship networks differed between sex-specific contexts (i.e., all-male, all-female, and mixed-sex classrooms), while controlling for perceived popularity. Whereas selection processes reflect how behaviors shape friendships, influence processes reveal the reversed pattern by indicating how friends affect individual behaviors. Data were derived from a longitudinal sample of early adolescents from Chile. Four all-male classrooms (n = 150 male adolescents), four all-female classrooms (n = 190 female adolescents), and eight mixed-sex classrooms (n = 272 students) were followed one year from grades 5 to 6 (Mage = 13). Analyses were conducted by means of stochastic-actor-based modeling as implemented in RSIENA. Although it was expected that selection and influence effects for physical aggression and prosociality would vary by context, these effects showed remarkably similar trends across all-male, all-female, and mixed-sex classrooms, with physical aggression reducing and with prosociality increasing the number of nominations received as best friend in all-male and particularly all-female classrooms. Further, perceived popularity increased the number of friendship nominations received in all contexts. Influence processes were only found for perceived popularity, but not for physical aggression and prosociality in any of the three contexts. Together, these findings highlight the importance of both behaviors for friendship selection independent of sex-specific contexts, attenuating the implications of these gendered behaviors for peer relations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 50 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 20%
Researcher 7 14%
Student > Bachelor 6 12%
Student > Master 3 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 2%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 20 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 14 28%
Social Sciences 10 20%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Unspecified 1 2%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 19 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 October 2018.
All research outputs
#15,788,696
of 24,995,611 outputs
Outputs from Sex Roles
#1,566
of 2,372 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#182,681
of 321,297 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Sex Roles
#20
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,995,611 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,372 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.2. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 321,297 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.